with united technologies use our grade and inspired to have an elevator in my house and helicopter in my backyard and we will get there. anyway thank you. this will be great we have a standing room only crowd. thank you all for coming. [applause] >> we will take you live to heritage foundation in just a few minutes for a discussion on the visa waiver program. first, a live look outside of the supreme court where the justices have kicked off the new term this morning by turning away the appeals from five states seeking to prohibit marriage. the courts refusal to hear the challenges means that the lower court decisions striking down bans in indiana, wisconsin, you talk about oklahoma and virginia will go into effect paving the way for same-sex marriages in the state as well as other

states in the circuit. that would mean to be coming in would be legal in 30 states and also the district of columbia. in the large republican district john lewis met for the first televised debate in the race and they spoke about america's approach on isis. >> we will take you live now to the heritage foundation for a discussion about the u.s. visa waiver program that allows citizens in some of the countries to travel to the u.s. for up to 90 days without a visa. >> at any time you can e-mail speaker@heritage.org and we are pleased that the audience will be joining us today and we look forward to the wonderful question and answer session throughout the programming. posting our discussion this afternoon is stephen, the rector

of the douglas and sarah allison center for foreign and national security policy who served for three decades as an army special forces officer and a top pentagon official served in the special operations cybersecurity as well as the defense support for civilian authorities. he served as a military assistance to the defense secretary donald rumsfeld for five and a half years and upon the retirement he continued around the deputy assistant secretary of defense for homeland defense and american security affairs. he is also been a consultant on cybersecurity prior to joining us here at heritage. please join me in welcoming doctor steve bucci. [applause] >> let me add my welcome to everyone. we have a good program for you this morning and hopefully we will come out of this better informed then when we got here. the program is going to go as follows.

i will introduce the secretary and then he will speak to answer a few questions and then he has to be part and then we will bring a panel of and finally wrapped up with closing remarks by the ambassador. without further ado i would like to introduce the secretary executive chairman and cofounder of the chertoff group, probably even more significantly, she was the secretary of the department of homeland security. he took that job at a very difficult time and frankly remade the organization and brought it up to the status where it was extremely effective and i say that as having been the department of defense counterpart to the dhs as my time as a secretary. i had the time to work extensively with secretary chertoff's folk and quite a few rather interesting events both

natural and man-made. he is also a former federal judge for the u.s. court of appeals for the third circuit and was a federal prosecutor who among other things prosecuted or conducted the investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks. with that i will ask secretary chertoff to join us. [applause] >> it is good to see some familiar faces in the crowd including some veterans as the government during my tenure. one of the things i did when i was the secretary of homeland security, i was engaged in the process of extending the visual waiver program which in 2007 and 2008 it incorporated a number of nations in central europe. and in 2008 i had the opportunity to go around and

meet with the leaders of those countries and it was a remarkable experience. in fact many of the highlights of my professional tenure can excuse me, after the department because i was made aware of how meaningful that inclusion into the visa waiver program was to the citizens of the countries in central europe. a time and again i was told whether it was the baltics or the czech republic or slovakia that the inclusion of the countries at the program was the final step in recognizing their migration from being under the control of the former soviet union into becoming the four members of the association of the freedom loving and democratic states. it's to go to a country that has been admitted into the program

and to see how even everyday people react to being told that they are finally in the category equivalent to that of western european allies that we have had within the program for a long period of time. in fact even my barber here in the u.s. who was in korea made a point of saying the next time i want to get my hair cut, thank you very much for admitting me to the visa waiver program. it was a very, very meaningful. but i'm here to talk to the program not in light of my experience in 2008 but in light of where we are now and obviously we are in a dangerous place in the world perhaps more dangerous than any time in the period in the last ten years. and that's to say it past a couple of years after the events of 9/11. and that is frankly because you have a proliferation of terrorist groups ranging from parts of africa all the way east

into afghanistan and pakistan. and a notable element that we are seeing in the last year or so has been the rise of groups like isis in this area and iraq that the liberty recruit foreign fighters, westerners and europeans in order to have them not only trained and participate in terrorist activities in the middle east and africa. they come back to the united states and western europe and carry out attacks in those locations. in fact recently we learned that the individual that attacked the judicious of the indulge him have actually gone and engaged in activities with isis in syria and iraq before we went back to western europe. this is obviously again the question of the security of travel and the security that we have with respect to visitors putting it on the front burner.

and i know that some have suggested we need to revisit the visa waiver program. wikipedia government of trying to conduct an operation that requires a scalpel by using a chainsaw. there are things we can do to enhance our security that i actually think that in the visa waiver program we could be more effective in doing them. so i want to take a few minutes to lay out the benefits to the united states of having a vigorous and effective visa waiver program and then talk about a few of the things we might do to make sure that we could continue to protect ourselves within the framework of the program first it needs to be clear that the visa waiver program is not a program that allows everybody to come to the united united states whether or not they pose a risk.

in the program several years ago the rate of the electronic system of travel off radiation. the visa waiver program participants both new and in the old existing members of the program and requires the citizens periodically to follow online with the u.s. government a brief statement about the particulars and the kind of things we normally correct at the border themselves in advance it creates an opportunity for the government to look at the details of someone's birthdate come address, things of that sort and determine whether based on what our intelligence is this person poses a risk that requires a closer look by the time they arrived in the united

states. so it is a very unobtrusive and convenient way to collect information in advance that we used to collect use to collect only when someone arrives in the u.s. and that gives the opportunity to analyze the basic data so that we can determine whether people are maybe a red flag for the purpose of the further inquiry. in the opportunity to review and analyze the record information which is basic travel data about people's address and contact information and travel take a deeper look at the kind of connections or contacts that might suggest we can then pull into the secondary when they arrived in the united states. these programs have power over the years and allowing us to avoid the problem of people coming in as operatives from

overseas because we have an early warning and that applies with respect to western europeans as well as other parts of the world. there are other benefits that we get for the visa waiver program that may be a little bit more broad than the better visibility who is coming into the country. there is solidarity in the program with countries like europe and particularly central europe. it will not have a skate through notice that we are at the time now may be again for the first time in many years that there's a serious national security issue in the european continent. and of course i'm talking about what is going on in ukraine and the various threatening noises that have been made from time to time from mr. putin regards to the baltics and central europe. it is a national security

problem of the first order. if they begin to feel that they are being isolated and covered from the west at the time that russia is making noises about about expanding its sphere of influence and its fear of power one of the things the visa waiver program allows us to do with these countries is to reaffirm our solidarity and our belief that the new democracies of europe are every bit a part of the western enterprise as the familiar democracies in france and germany. and i think that maintaining that sense of solidarity particularly at this moment is of a critical importance to america and to the national security alliance. finally of of course there is economic benefits. the ability for central europeans and koreans and others to travel to the u.s.. it's without the need to get the visa in the cumbersome process.

it facilitates trade, economic activity and even cultural exchange. and particularly at the time that the global economic remains one of the economic climate remains fragile and the recovery is uneven to say the least, promoting economic development has a positive benefit for this country as well as for the countries that we travel to or that have citizens that travel to us. now, what do we say in light of these new threats with respect to the foreign fighters? if there is one point to be made is that obviously with respect to americans who go to iraq and c-reactive fight with isis or went to somalia to fight with al-shabaab that ascend a visa waiver issue because these are american citizens who were entitled to come back into the u.s. and they don't need a visa under any circumstances. what we need to do to identify these returning fighters in the

same principle applies to the fighters who are coming perhaps the western european countries and been traveling in through the u.s. what we need to do is have a direct sound of information to travelers that allows them to identify patterns of behavior and connections that suggest we need to take a closer look. that's maybe e-mail contacts that turnout connected to e-mails of terrorists or it may turn out to be telephoned contact numbers we identified and it may be behavior in terms of travel patterns that suggest someone have gone through the middle east and has been there for several months and then in mergers and we do not have a picture of where they were. that's not to say that that is necessarily proof of guilt but it's proof that you need to look a little bit more closely into the ability to use these

programs as a way of collecting that information and to use what we've been doing with respect to the passenger information as a way of identifying patterns that require a closer look this is exactly the kind of scalpel that we need to use in order to identify those that might be at risk in terms of terrorist activities and to that take a closer look at them. just to give you an idea how effective this can be when you look a look back at the hijackers after we put this program into effect. we wanted to see if we had to the current programs that we have in place prior to september of 2001 whether we would have picked up connections among the 19 hijackers and when we ran the current programs retrospectively we discovered 15 of the 19 hijackers we would have found connections and some of those

connections than taking us back to individuals we knew had identified as al qaeda operatives were supporters. so we've really validated this concept and it's served us well and i submit it can continue to serve us well even while we maintain the visa waiver program going forward. finally there are a couple of other things we can do. one is we have begun to expand preclearance overseas. i know the department of homeland security is looking at the other areas. so now, to explain what the preclearance is is, it's a program that we have agreements that the country overseas, to place the customs and border protection officials in an overseas airport and effectively they can conduct immigration and customs before people board the plane. that's a convenience to the people that come to the u.s.

because they no longer have to come through the gateway is the customs presence in the u.s. and they can travel directly to other cities we need to get an early look at the people coming into the united states. we guess not only to look at the paper record and whatever we are able to connect to and the people that want to come into the u.s. to determine whether the behavior suggests questionable activity. that is an extra level of protection for us. it is also a convenience for the traveler because if you have a traveler that may exhibit a problem, we can catch it before the person gets on get on the airplane and that creates an extra level of security with respect to aviation security. so preclearance is a win-win for the u.s. government and the traveling public that is on the

airplane and for the country that is hosting the preclearance program. in order to make sure that we have the benefit of what the current protected programs are with respect to the visa waiver is to continue to support what is being done in the intelligence community to correct information about telephone numbers and e-mail addresses overseas that are potentially connected to the terrorists. you don't need to look at the contents to realize that when you have a particular address or particular phone number that you previously have seen related to terrorist finance activities were even operational activity. but anybody that connects to that number you need to take a closer look at. click can be the reason to connect to that at the very least it puts you on the notice that he wants to be asking more questions. one of the things i try to say

when the subject comes up about how to we deal with isis and the increased risk of the foreign fighters is that this is not the time to handicap or dismantle our intelligence collection programs using nsa and other intelligence agencies that have been literally the cornerstone of protecting the united states since 2001. it has made it much more difficult for the enemy. it has yielded a concrete results, and at the time that we need this more than ever because of what's going on out there, we do not want to reduce the capability in this area. so in conclusion i will take a couple of questions. i think the visa lever program is a plus for the national security and for the economic security. i think that we have constructed a program that makes it a production of the vulnerability very powerful. there are some additional things we can do and are doing to enhance our ability to protect

ourselves, and the way to deal with the issue of foreign fighters is to use the scalpel of identifying them with prevision and then taking them out and not just dismantling the program that serves not only the united united states while united states will let our foreign friends and allies overseas. so with that come if you would identify yourself i'm happy to take two or three questions. as. >> penny starr with cns news. what else is there that they look at that can help identify the bad guys for lack of a better word and e-mails and phone numbers? is there any other date of the program allows the government to look at? thank you. >> yes. i'm not going to get here and tell you all the stuff that's looked at today i would be pretty savvy if i did that. but the answer is yes it is all legal and legitimate. [laughter]

>> tom curry with the cq rollcall. you mentioned the value in the preclearance program. looking at the person face to face, go back to the visa process. what purpose if any does the traditional interview to get the visa serving the counterterrorism role and is that the value of the face-to-face interview mosque because not everybody goes through the preclearance process, many are the visa waiver program arrivals do not. so, what value if any does the interview have been the counterterrorism? >> the interview is supposed to look at a number of different things. it has value in terms of counterterrorism but it arose where it was designed to effect people who might come to the u.s. and overstay and not

leaving a lot of it was focused on what are your roots back home and what's your reason for coming and things like that. often what happens these people show a kind of evasiveness or nervousness but it doesn't tell you exactly what threat they pose but it tells you there's something that you need to look at more closely. there is no question that it adds a certain dimension, but on balance, in the end it doesn't give you the kind of granularity that you get with the data and the data analytics that have far advanced 12, 13 or 14 years ago. as of again if i look at the trade-off, the positive benefit of the program and the marginal issue in terms of protection, i think that it's very small and easily compensated for. and then if the benefit remains very powerful.

>> brad clapper from the associated press. when you see efforts in congress right now some democrats and some republicans have even signed on to these two suspended the visa waiver programs hell do you go about talking to them about what you said today what you even be able to fathom suspending something that's letting millions of people 3.8 million do we have staff that could do the type of work that would replace them and if we don't, how long would it take to establishing how much are we talking about here? can you go over those alternatives >> if you try to visualize what the consequences of terminating the program would be, it's hard to calculate the cost is both to

the u.s. and from the u.s.. that would not only affect the economic activity. and you have people going over to conduct business. all those people would want to go to the visa process. as you observe quite rightly, we have to staff up tremendously in terms of putting people overseas in order to manage the demand for the visa assuming people want to go through that process. that would i would have a serious impact on the federal budget. if you didn't do that we would be shooting eight for pico to the industry and the economy. and i think under any circumstances i'm confident that you could see the impact on the global economy almost instantly. we would irritate our friends and allies that we go to for help for example when we put together the coalition as we have a in iraq and c-reactive

give a boost to mr. putin that would return to the central europeans and the baltics to see if they told you they were friends but they pitching over the side of the first sign of trouble. i would say that you almost can't calculate the cost of the national security and the cost in the economic benefit and the federal budget. in terminating this program. >> i think one more >> your answer regarding the face-to-face interview and the importance of that makes me think that perhaps we would be best off making the continuance of the program for the particular country contingent upon them implementing the preclearance in a reasonable period of time so that we would be sure that we have the

face-to-face interview on an ongoing basis. >> we don't have the money and the capability to go to preclearance in the visa waiver countries. people worried about the budget of there's a there is a limit to how much money you have to spend while that is a useful element it is by no means essential. the most important tools you have are the tools in the intelligence collection and analysis. if you get a nervous person that face-to-face is helpful. but, again if you're looking at the marginal benefit versus the marginal cost, i think the cost of doing it for every visa waiver country is far exceeding the benefit. >> thank you.

[applause] asked the panelists to come forward. i think secretary chertoff has done a good job of establishing the issues that we are attempting to deal with you this morning. i guess it's afternoon now. sorry. we have a lot of well-meaning people over on capitol hill and some of the commentators who are opining that perhaps the visa waiver program needs to be terminated, suspended, something like that. and that was the genesis of doing this event. we now have a panel or two of the three panelists. the third one will arrive shortly. but i would like to introduce them and get them started. you'll notice when the third panelist pops up that it's a big personality. but we are going to start with

my colleague in the resource associates specifically tasked with doing all of the homeland security issues for heritage. they specialize in cyber and immigration issues, but he is responsible for all of it. he works for me and gets to do all the work. i get to take the bow. atom is the president of the tourism economics which is dedicated to analytically-based consulting for the tourism sector. he is an expert and a consultant dealing with hard numbers of the cost and benefits and in some cases liabilities of certain programs and how they affect the very large economic sector which is the tourism sector. and then the missing third

panelist is stewart baker. stewart is or was a partner with steptoe and john saying that he was the first assistant secretary to the department of homeland security for policy. and he is the guy that said most of these programs up under the secretary chertoff. and he is a leading commentator on many of these issues and for those of you that know him i noticed a few laughs when i mentioned the sides of his personality. he is a very outspoken person about whatever he chooses to speak about. so, we will do the same thing. each of the speakers will go for about five to seven minutes and then we will go through all three of them and then take questions. at the end of that, i will moderate that. we want to get as many questions as we can. so ask short ones with an actual question at the end. that is a good one and we will get through as many as possible

and then go to the final speaker. with that, we will start with david. >> what i i want to do today is quickly describe the visa waiver program is and to describe the benefits that were laid out before i secretary chertoff and deal with some of the concerns and then discuss what are the next steps forward in this program. first, what is vwp clicks the visa waiver program allows members of other countries to visit without a visa for up to 90 days for business or pleasure. to be a part of vwp, the country must meet several criteria. first the country must have a non- immigrant refusal rate of less than 3%. ..

they had to share information on lost and stolen passports. i have to increase their own airport security requirements and they have to provide u.s. citizens with reciprocal ability to travel to that country without a visa as well. now, these features greatly enhance security by providing us law enforcement instituted agencies with more information and more intelligence on potential terrorists and other bad actors. the visa waiver program makes it easier to know whether an individual is a security threat.

the visa waiver program also allows the state department to focus its limited consular resources on those countries and individuals about which less is known and who could be high risks to the united states. furthermore, the visa waiver program is not without screening and security procedures. as secretary chertoff mention every traveler from the u.s. coming to u.s. from a visa waiver program country must be prescreened through a step checks berries database and doesn't have analytics which secretary chertoff mentions and make sure they're not security risks at that they're eligible for entry into the united states. additionally at every step along the process from buying a ticket to check in for the light to showing up at the gate until landing in the united states, there are a series of checks that are going based on most updated information that went in our systems. at any point along the process if he is official believes that there's a security risk, they can dive in deeper take a deeper look and if necessary deny the

person entry into the united states. so in terms of benefits, clearly the first is security. the more information sharing, better airport street abroad and being able to focus our finite consular resources on high-risk countries and individuals. these all improved u.s. security. second of the u.s. has had and continues to have major economic benefits. makes trade and tourism easier and brings interest to the track where they can spend their money here and also enables businessmen to come and engage in business transactions. out and we'll talk more about that. -- at him. it is important tool for foreign policy and public diplomacy. allowing individuals to come to the united states enjoyed our country can improve foreign publics understanding of america and our culture. by extending the privilege of transport other nations it also will deepen the diplomatic ties we have first friendly governments as well. now what these major benefits,

we should address some concerns, specifically the threat of isis. european passport owners becoming what foreign fighters in syria and iraq. making the issue worse come in 2012 there was a gao study that found a lot of information sharing wasn't occurring. certainly this is a valid reason for concern, if the vwp is premised on increasing sharing and it isn't happening, that's bad. in 2012 heritage wrote it was time to all these countries accountable if they do not share their information. since then the information sharing has increased medically. this year is that a study earlier this year and found nearly all countries were sharing nearly all the data they had that was required of the law. more recent conversations i've had with officials pointe pointt all countries are sure and all information and now it's a question of working out some of the particulars about the data automation peace and how the information is actively being shared, but it is occurring.

while radicalized britons or germans or anyone from europe is of a great concern to any of our nation's, which are threatened by islamic terrorism, this is not a good reason to cancel the visa waiver program. vwp promotes security to the information sharing arrangements, and other security officials i talked about. by canceling or suspending it not only would we have the media trade and economic harm, but we also have less information available to us with which to make a visa decision and to watch out for suspected terrorists. so what should the u.s. be willing forward? first of all, the u.s. to be looking, always should be looking for ways to enhance information sharing a richmond, prove the type of information we get off of esta forms and make sure we use the appropriate mechanisms to expand our ability to screen individuals and connect intelligence dots. these types of improvements do not require a chainsaw.

to require a scalpel and they could all be made within the existing program and we don't need to cancel or suspend it. second, you should be looking to do judiciously expand the visa waiver program. the more friends and allies that are contributing information of potential terrorists, the better able we are to look out for individuals who could be a threat to the united states. expanding visa waiver would allow us to better focus our finance these and consular resources on other nations and individuals. the way to make this expansion has been used to replace the visa refusal rate with something called the visa overstay rate or use some combination of the metrics. but these overstay rate is exactly sounds like. the percentage of people who we know overstay the visa when they come into the united states. it's a better and more i could a metric for determining the immigration risk posed to the united states. using this would allow more nations to join the visa waiver program without threatening u.s. security or immigration

procedures. it's worth mentioning these visa waiver program and expand has gotten caught up in the immigration debate. there is no reason why this commonsense changes and reforms and expansion of this program should be held hostage to more controversial elements. congress should be considering visa waiver program on its own merits and not on the merits of the embassy. so with all these benefits the visa waiver program is more valuable than ever to the threat of isis and radicalized western us is real, and the u.s. should be all its intelligence the tools at its disposal to find and stop these terrorist. the visa waiver program is one of those tools. and to stop it now would make the u.s. less secure, less prosperous and less engaged with friends and allies. instead we should be looking to improve and expand the program. thank you. >> thank you, david. at him?

>> -- adam? >> good afternoon. as the head of a company that has economic analysis for the travel industry only taking a decidedly economic centric view of this issue. the u.s. economy last year ran its deficits of $500 billion. amidst this, one export sector stands out in contrast, and that is the travel sector. the travel sector in this context is an export because it purchases of locally produced goods and services by foreign markets. that sector enjoyed and $80 billion surplus last year, or for the 12 months through july. and the broader context of traders globalization has continued and manufacturing has shifted to low-cost areas of production, even though the u.s.

has found key areas of manufacturing competitiveness, the travel sector continues to compete at the highest level across the board. ultimately, it's in this sector that we see the united states as eminently competitive. now, it's not just a we the trade surplus of this $80 billion. tourism is actually one of our largest exports, hands down. $180 billion spent in the country last year by foreign tourists, compared larger than auto and auto parts exports at 152 billion, or food and beverage products 136 billion. why? why is the u.s. competing at such a high level? we work with clients around the world, governments, every continent. we see the way that they view the united states as a competitor. and their research, the research

that we use in developing their terse and develop strategies, shows that the use is one of the most aspirational destinations in the world. showing up within the top two or three bucket list estimations for travel markets from everywhere that you would want to attract this market. now, if you want to put that into context, how good are we at this? that 180 billion that's spent in the u.s., that positions us as the number one source of foreign visitors spending in the world. who is number two? it's sprained, and spain is that just about one-third of that at 60 billion. so that's how much better we happen to be at this in terms of competing. but there is, nonetheless, and enormously competitive global market. yet somehow within this the use

enjoys this intrinsic competitiveness, and it's fundamentally, the view of the way that markets of u.s. and the way that survey respondents talk about the u.s. is that the u.s. offers a product of diversity and quality, with stunning beauty, married attractions, culture and entertainment that is arguably unrivaled. there's another reason, and it's a topic that we're discussing today which is the visa waiver program. it is a significant part of why the u.s. travel industry has been and is as successful as it is. if you want proof of this, let me share with you some case studies of what has happened when countries have entered into the visa waiver program. so taiwan was excepted in the fall of 2012. in 2013, this is from taiwan to

the nazis increased 33%. and the november -- to the united states the number of countries were granted access. czech republic, estonia, lithuania, slovakia, republic of korea. they met the criteria. well, over the following three year period, a collective group of these markets increased 46%, nearly half, nearly 50% increase over that period of time. if you look at where they traveled elsewhere, maybe these markets were just growing at a faster rate, actually their travel to other parts of the world grew fractionally. if you want to look at specific countries within the group, south korea who joined in late 2008, grew 46% over the following two years. the czech republic grew 31% the year after. hungary 15%, slovakia 44%. clearly this program has a

significant impact. within the competitive environment though, resting on our laurels, much less stepping backward is clearly a bad option. there is serious marketing and product development going on around the world to compete for these various bases to establish a brand u.s.a., the market of the united states a couple years ago has been a major step forward in being able to compete. but they're competing against a global budget of destinations working themselves that's $4 billion. so other destinations are competing very strongly. though the tide has been turned over the last two years in terms of market share, if you look at since 2000, the united states has lost market share of global travel. it's lost market share from south america, from europe, and

from asia. and some of the products we been involved with as a firm have actually been helping governments around the world and consortium of regional grouping countries such as a pack, ac on, look at how can they begin to adopt more sensible and inclusive travel facilitation policies including visa waiver where appropriate so that they can compete at a higher level? now, other countries are certainly on the strike. canada allows the czech republic to enter canada visa waiver in 2007, rivals increased 36%, again from the czech republic in the following district russia opened up to hong kong in 2000. the volume of arrivals to the russian federation from hong kong jumped 184% from the following three years.

so we can then with this background ask ourselves what would happen if the visa waiver program were reversed or curtailed? you could reasonably assume that it would be the opposite of the benefits that were realized when it was introduced but there are also two studies that would have happened when countries have perhaps ill advisedly restated these requirements, and there are a few examples of this. canada renewed the visa requirement on the czech republic in june 2009. perhaps liberalizing for two years they decided to reinstate that requirement. arrivals over the next three years from the czech republic to canada declined 70%. canada also imposed a fee to shrink visa waiver program in mexico in 2009 and over the next three years mexican arrivals to canada dropped nearly 50%. and the uk, also another case study imposed visa requirements of south africa in march 2009,

then ensued a decline of 30% from that market. so the reality is with this background that these requirements are fundamentally a self-imposed barrier to trade. on our own economy. the visa waiver program benefited 31% of our overseas visitors last year. amazingly even as these countries have been added over the last five or six years, the share of visa waiver countries that represent and are total overseas volume has declined from 45% to where it now stands at 31%. the reason for that is because in emerging markets and high-growth markets are the very ones that still require a visa. and requirements are still imposed where growth opportunities still remain to be the greatest. china, brazil, india, latin

america, and poland. so in conclusion, there's no question that security must be paramount, but the need for security must not be seen and is not in conflict with the economic value and opportunity that the visa waiver program affords us. so if it's in reference to trade shows, we assessed the market a few years ago and found that about 2.5% of potential delegates, international delegates to trade shows and exhibitions in the u.s. were refused entry. and that equated to, because trade that takes place at these events, a loss of $2.5 billion. and when it comes to leisure travel, leisure visitors, common experience the realities of the united states of america and not

a caricature. so what this leads us to is the really unavoidable conclusion that investment in the visa waiver program should be made to make it as inclusive and secure as possible, and those investments will pay massive dividends. well, in my remarks i sort of unapologetically focus on the economics of this issue but perhaps i will and with a higher level of prose from one mark twain. travel is fatal. prejudice, bigotry and narrowmindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. think you. >> thank you very much, adam. and now appearing just at precisely the right moment -- [laughter] is my esteemed colleague stewart baker. >> you need a visa to use massachusetts avenue.

[laughter] >> and we talked security, economics. you get to wrap up the panel. >> the headlines about the possibility of people with initiating western passports are obviously quite pointed these days. and the risk of terrorists coming back from syria and iraq has never been more of a concern. and that led the u.n. security council to adopt a unanimous resolution, and not easy to get anything unanimously out of the security council, on terrorist travel, asking, telling member countries to address foreign terrorists, fighters by doing a variety of things.

preventing suspected fighters to entry are transiting their territories, implementing legislation to prosecute foreign terrorist fighters, to undertake the recent steps to improve international cooperation such as sharing information on criminal investigations, interdictions and prostitution. i dwell on that because that turned out to be a surprisingly easy thing to get international agreement on. and the reason it was so pricing the easy is that the united states, using its vwp leverage over the last five to 10 years, has more or less imposed those kinds of measures on our vwp counterparts around the world, so that we now have arrangements in which our vwp counterpart provide us with information that

was never available before because we used the leverage of possibly withdrawing in part vwp status to get everybody to do things that they more or less agreed was a good idea, but which they never would have done without something that drove them in the direction of actually doing it right now. and one of the things that i think that we can be pleased about was the bipartisanship that we saw in 2006, between a deeply democratic congress and president bush in which the 9/11 legislation was adopted, which sets standard for which have to do to be in the vwp. and where we're able to say we can expand the vwp, but at the same time set very high

standards for security in the program and in connection with our counterparts abroad. that effort turned out to be remarkably successful. the combination of pressure about security inside the united states and the possibility that we would withdraw vwp status from people who didn't, countries that did not cooperate. at the same time we're demonstrating that we were committed to actually have a vwp program by opening the program to eastern europe produced a consensus, obviously the people are coming in new were deeply enthusiastic about pretty much anything that the u.s. asked them to do. wants a have signed on to all of these secured a measures, it became much more difficult for some of the countries where this was a bigger problem either because they were less enthusiastic allies of the united states, they had a bigger

islamic population. in the long run they had to come on board also. so we now receive information about criminal convictions from all of these countries, none of which gave it to us before. we also put in place a program of electronic, well, the european commission with whom i had i guess -- nice relationship, one point said to me, look, this trend one thing where people have to make reservations to come to the country and fill out all these forms in advance and you might telling us we want to welcome you with a we are a visa waiver country, this is like an electronic visa. and i said wow, you broke the code. the fact is what we have done is in the esta program is take

advantage of the electronic capabilities that the communications that the internet makes possible, the background data processing that allows us to say yes, we are open for business. we're 99.5. we're 99-point a person everybody who wants to come there from these countries, and we will tell you if you're in the .1% before you get on the plane. that ability to do that the background check, even for people who in theory are coming in without a visa past trends from our ability to protect the united states from occasional bad guys are coming from countries that are basically allied with the united states. so when they hear people worrying out loud about the vwp, i can't help asking, compared to what? because the alternative would be to go back -- i will say the

state department is not in the 21st century, but they are struggling to provide the kind of background checks that are necessary for people who are coming from visa countries. and they are doing personal interviews which has value, but the idea that we would you personal interviews for everybody in great britain or france wants to come to the united states is a way of saying we really don't want anybody from france or the united kingdom to come here, as you can imagine. if you had a choice of going on vacation in a place that required you to fly to washington to be interviewed before you could, i suppose that's a just get on the plane and fly here instead, most people would choose the easier route. so what we have done with the esta is made much easier for people to go through the process. we are able to do deeper background analysis on those

people because of the data we're getting from their own countries. we are not rely on our own list of people that we're worried about. we have the list from the folks who are closest to some of these movements in the country that the individuals are coming from. so it seems to me that rather than focusing on taking vwp a way can we should be asking, what can we do, especially with a u.n. resolution that everybody sign onto, security council resolution, why can't we be doing to take those requirements and reinterpreting them in the context of a growing vwp to say, yeah, we are going to implement all of that as part of our visa waiver program and we're going to bring the rest of the developed world and some of the countries i want to be part of vwp along with us. we can get security and more travel at the same time.

>> all right. microphone people, get ready. all right. we are ready to take questions for the panel. okay, you get to go first again. >> mr. baker, can you, now, wouldn't the people say these foreign fighters are from france for the uk, just use an example, go to syria, train, come back and they don't have any criminal record? a young man who is, you know, there's nothing there to let us know. i think that's a greater concern than people that are known criminals for their archives or something with their past. it seems like there's a lot of very young men. and might not have something that would be a red flag. what about that? >> first, there is a requirement in the security council resolution to ask only -- action to prosecute people before doing the. we used to prosecute people all the time for filing the logan

act, or engaging in foreign wars. so that the spra spring of prect for treating that as a crime. and the other point i would say the french government, the uk government, is at least -- and should be as we are. it is not a given that they're coming back to france to buy tickets to new york. and so french intelligence, french law enforcement is going to be watching for these folks trying to identify them and keep track of them. we do need and we have pretty good, but i won't say perfect exchanges of information about those folks. we have a new u.n. security council resolution ssu should be sharing information. we should says part of our expectation perspective vwp, we want you to be sharing that information and we will share back to you the same kinds of information about americans who

have traveled to syria for the same purpose. >> right there. >> hi. senate judiciary minority. so in houston on september 10 discussing the visa waiver program, mr. miller and mr. wagner from cbp said that 300 esta applications have been denied this year alone for security related reasons but 400 that were previously approved were later denied. would you recommend expanding the data points that we are requesting from these countries? you just said that we uphold these countries that before the passage get on the point we've already screened them and we've approved them more of them are being tonight after the fact and before fact. >> i think we should look hard at that and we should also look hard at expand the kind of information we get so we can do a better job of using our own intelligence capabilities to

identify people who shouldn't be coming here. there are times when you said okay, we wanted to come there so we can arrest them, but those are rare. absolutely. you know, the vwp gives us lots of leverage. but it's leverage you want to use sparingly because it's a little bit of -- if you actually take someone's visa waiver status away from them, it's going to hurt you as much as it hurts them. what you need to do is find things like exchanges of information that most governments recognize they ought to be doing but they need some incentives. incentive. they need to be able to say to the opposition, people say don't share any information with the americans, they will just and all these people to guantánamo, which is what the usual rap is on the united states. they need to be able to say, well, we can't afford not to.

we have a resolution, and we don't want to put visa waiver at risk. so if you recognize your leverage and use it sparingly, you can get more information both from governments and you can change the esta, start requiring more information. >> i was going to add to that, as circumstances change, as cbp season these additional information there's a reason to not look at changing it to information i would ask for on esta. threats change and data points need change, so something you should take a look at. >> from polish press agency. f. understand if her from aspect. [inaudible] you have to go for the visa interview and then if you are lucky to have a visa for 10 years. and then you can travel to u.s. without any procedures. and when you're a member of the country that is a member of the

visa waiver program if someone to create to pass through esta procedure and deliver information about you, yes? in terms of security, actually which is better? >> it's a close call. you don't actually have to to esta ever done. you do it once for a couple of years usually. the main difference between the two is that there is an interview but that could be very short interview and it doesn't necessarily produce a lot of information. to my mind if the choice is between having good cooperation from the intelligence services and the interior ministries of a country so that they're telling you who they are worried about, and they know more about who is danger in the country and we do, if the choice is between that and being able to do interviews of people in the country, i would take the data cooperation every time. >> also just add to that, not

only are their information sharing and cooperation aspect but also we talked about budgets have, a little bit. state department only has so much money they can spend looking, doing these interviews and such. if more people are part of visa waiver program that means the same number of officers are able to focus more intent on countries where we think there are greater risks. so there's also security benefits can be able to shift towards high-risk targets. >> right there. >> thank you. i'm on the board of advisors for the federation for american immigration reform. i have two related questions. one is, is the wave people from having, having to have visas, how do you keep track of whether they overstay the visas they

don't need? and the second related question is, if the united states is in effect a net benefactor from foreign travel, more people coming here and i'm going someplace else, but we make $80 billion more, why would a country, which is nothing more of its residents go to the united states for business or pleasure then come from united states to that country, have any incentive whatsoever to facilitate and increase the incidence of that happening? >> let me try that one. so first, a visa waiver doesn't mean you just don't come here

without a visa and stay for as long as you want. it is really a visa. it's a 90 day visa, if i remember right, and if you stay today 91 view our overstaying. we know you have come here because we've got your entry data, and unless you sort of do something weird like drive in and fly out, or fly in and drive out, we will also have records that show you departing. so it's not at all impossible, although it's obviously a big data job to match up the information on the manifest coming in and the information on the manifest coming out, which ought to be the same passport information to see whether people came and stayed longer than they should have. our usual approach for most

people, and this by large has a pretty good disciplinary effect, is to say a few overstay, you ain't coming back on the visa waiver program. you're going to need to get a visa next time, and i vividly remember some poor woman from iceland who came to the united states. i picture her as a matron in a nice sweater. she arrived and they said, you know, 20 years ago you overstayed your vwp status by today's but as she said, well i was in love, you know? they said sorry, we have to send you back because you don't have a visa. and before we send you back, of course we have to keep the overnight because next flight to iceland isn't until tomorrow. and because of our standard procedures for dealing with people who are unlawful immigrants have to be sent back,

we are going to have to put you into detention. and because of our rules for how we do detention, we are going to have to shackle you on and leg to ride in the bus. she will never forget -- all of iceland will never forget that experience. so there are ways of deterring that. but you also have a number of checks when people, in that allow you to do security checks on people on the waiting. so i think there are mechanisms. we have a particularly, if there's reason to be concerned about and overstay, there are folks at ice to make it a priority to track down people who are particularly raised concerns from a terrorism point of view. i will try to be shorter.

this is not just a calculation of well, who is getting more money? who has more tourists and richer tourists, and what's a net benefit? the real incentive here is that if you are a french official and you told the french public, by the way, i have screwed this up so badly that you're going to have to come to paris and sit down in the embassy to go to disneyland, you would lose the next election. and the same would probably be true in the united states. they would be viewed as a major faux pas to have screwed up the relationship with europe so that nobody could take their holidays in europe without going through this. so both sides will feel enormous political pain from doing this, as opposed to saying, i think i'm ahead of the game final go ahead and cut off vwp. i don't think it really works that way spent i think experience bears that out.

there's no incident where someone is granted visa waiver to come to the u.s. there hasn't been that reciprocity. notwithstanding the fact that in most cases the u.s. has a net balance trade would be the primary beneficiary. another interesting example right now is brazil because brazil, which many with the newest travel industry would say should be a candidate for the visa waiver program. actually requires a visa for use traveled to brazil on the basis of reciprocity. it's not, has nothing to do with the security or overstaying issues. it's the fact you're going to require it of us, we were required of you. they would most gladly lift that visa requirement of american travel, even though brazil, brazilian travel to the u.s. that demand is much, much greater than for american travel to brazil. >> i would just and on the

question of overstay, that's one of the reasons why at heritage we recommend that we should move to a system which includes these overstay picu whenever some every single piece of from overstaying but if you have requirement that you have to have a these overstay rate which is lower, 3%, and low these overstay rate than you're looking for countries which do know this isn't already have good ties. they tend to go back to your reducing immigration risk. that's another reason why you could switch to a metric like that. >> okay. i'm going to have to cut off the questions so we can get to the ambassador. please thank me, or join me in thanking the panel. [applause] >> and as they exit the stage i will apologize ahead of time as a guy whose name gets mispronounced quite often. i apologize ahead of time, mr. ambassador, but we now have ambassador ryszard schnepf.

i apologize. see, it's a good thing i did it ahead of time. he is a longtime representative of the nation of poland for their ministry of foreign affairs. he has been the ambassador of poland to spain. most recently before this assignment and is now the ambassador extraordinary and plenty for 10 sharing of poland to the united states, and please join me in welcoming him to our stage. [applause] >> been good afternoon. we've been talking about staying here, so i can confirm that the tourism, it's a great deal that spain has enjoyed since many years, thanks to the open policy

to attract all these forests -- tourists. let me start by thanking the heritage foundation for organizing this important event, and for inviting me to have the last word, which as you know, presents both an opportunity to leave a lasting mark for those with some additional treasure deliver -- delivered on also like to thank the panel is. i really enjoyed it. it was very instructive, very interesting. and particularly i agreed with the last opinions concerning the cooperation between two countries, as far as the security concern. it's much more important than the interview system that still is being complied with some cases. my mission reached its midterm

surprisingly fast, after two years stay in washington. some journalist emboldens the i am the most experienced member in the polish foreign service, which is a subtle diplomatic way to remind being that retirement is only on the horizon. but be forewarned drives away into the sunset, one can have dreams. and mine is quite a simple one. to get over the last obstacle in u.s. imposed bilateral relations and get poland into the visa waiver program. polish citizens deserve to feel welcomed when visiting the homeland of friends and allies. a revolution once and for all to this issue should mean a lot to our allies.

having said that, i would like to draw your attention to a couple of important facts. and the first one is that despite not being in the vwp, poland has fulfilled all the legal requirements demanded by the program. we have signed and abide, by all bilateral agreements that need to be a part of vwp. second, we are one of the closest u.s. allies in europe. polish soldiers have flawed alongside the american colleagues in iraq and afghanistan, and we are part of the anti-isil coalition. the polls don't -- in fact our

attitudes towards terrorism and what is happening in the world today are in line that without of our american friends. our clark ration as for security as i mentioned goes pretty far. and third, the hassle and embarrassment associated with having to stand in line to obtain a visa has turned many bullish businessmen and entrepreneurs who look for opportunities elsewhere rather than the united states. when asked why, the reason is simple. the delays and hassle of these applications have on their business models. finally, tourism, which was mentioned so frequently here, an area where the united states is missing out greatly with

10 million americans of polish backgrounds calling the u.s. home. there's plenty of places where poles have a reason to visit. yet in the recent years, they prefer going to disneyland and paredes -- paris rather than disneyland in los angeles. why? simply with the stigma of having to stand in line to ask for permission to travel to the united states. i think you will agree with me when i say that we are both losing out in the current environment. but no one more so than the united states. not only is it missing out on tourism revenue, but more importantly our relations miss out on the critical people to people contact, the bedrock of our strong relations. last week, secretary of commerce

led an official visit delegation to poland to promote greater economic lines between the two countries. during the visit she highlighted poland's extraordinary political and economic transformation since the cold war. when president obama recently called, and i quote, and economic miracle. my country's incredible progress has placed poland among the top 20 economies in the world, enable poland to avoid a broad european recession, and make poland the sixth largest as well as the fastest growing economy in the european union. this is part of the reason we have seen u.s. poland commercial connections grow at such a rapid pace in recent years.

among the 100 largest u.s. companies, 56 operate in poland. more than 300 u.s. companies are invested in poland across all sectors, from retail to services, to manufacturing with investment of over 30 billion over the last two decades. at the same time, polish companies invested half a billion of u.s. dollars in the united states over the last year. i stand here before you to make it clear that these numbers can and should be greater. the vwp extension is essential in allowing for this to take place. over the past two years, my staff and i have worked closely with our friends in the

administration and on capitol hill to get poland into the visa waiver program. that would pave the way for poland and other allies to enter the program is passed in the senate earlier this year. the house version in turn has 165 cosponsors, from both sides of the aisle. but the house version has been stalled for months. i know. i speak for many when i say that we want to see the light of the day and be placed on the floor for a vote. as all indications suggest, this is a broad bipartisan support that would lead to its passage in the house.

let me conclude by thanking and applauding the heritage foundation for their ongoing support for visa waiver program expansion over the years. and encourage our business friends, those who are already heavily invested in poland as well as those who are just taking the opportunities of marketplace provides. to contact members in the house, but especially the house leadership and members of the judiciary committee to underline the importance of poets inclusion to this program. it is a great starting point. as far as i'm concerned, why wait for the new congress to be sworn in next year and allowed two years of hard work to be lost when congress can get this done during the lame-duck session. u.s. jobs depend on this.

a collective security depends on this. and transatlantic relations depend on it. so i remain hopeful the house acts, and congress follow suit, and then that this deal reach the president's desk. and i'm counting on your support. thank you. [applause] >> well, mr. ambassador, i've to say as a member of our military who fought next to your men and women both in iraq and afghanistan, i think you and i thank you for the continued friendship that was there before you begin a formal ally, until now, and we at heritage stay firmly behind the giving your

country in to the visa waiver program and help expand it further. thank you. i would like to thank all of you for being here today. hopefully come we've increased an understanding of the visa waiver program. and i will put out an invitation to those of you in the press and those of you from over on the hill. the your members have questioned about visa waiver and why we support it, staying in place an actual expanding during this time rather than trying to get it to received, we would be happy to chat with you and give you those reasons and even more depth that we elaborate on here. we think it's very important for the security of the united states and for our relations with our friends and allies that we do this. and with that, i thank all of you that are here, those of you that are online and with us through c-span, and we wish you a wonderful afternoon. thank you.

[applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> if you missed any of this program you can see it again in its entirety, go to c-span.org. coming up in about five minutes, live coverage from former russian minister igor ivanov. that event hosted by the wilson center here in washington, d.c. you can see it live starting at 1:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2. also as part of c-span campaign

2014 coverage we have been bringing you debates on key house, senate and governor races. the race for montana's at-large congressional district features republican ryan and democrat john lewis. the first televised debate over the weekend, the candidates spoke about america's approach towards combating icy. here's a quick look. >> might upload a call for economic sanctions against isis. tell me how you put economic sanctions against a non-nation state. maybe we should perhaps right a curtsy worded letter to isis is a danger to my danger to the captain of a three-pronged approach forget to shut down our southern border. our southern border is no longer an immigration issue. it's a security and immigration threat. a nation that can build a panama canal in the 19th century certainly can build a fence in the 21st. secondly, unfortunately, it's going to call for america to lead. you cannot control i says by air

alone. in the words of general conway, 4-star former commandant of the marine corps, there is no snowball's chance in hell that their operations will work, and i agree. secondly, limit our ground forces to special forces, to supply and support can we make sure our coalitions that we choose our watched and efficiently trained, and limit our involvement but make sure that isis is destroyed. >> would follow because no one answered how we're paying for this. we have put two wars on the credit card. would you be willing to support a war tax in support as donna said a perpetual war we seem to be in? >> that are too clear are clearly different approaches to the situation on this issue. i'm saying we need to be thoughtful and responsible indecision. know, a letter will not get the job done, but this is somebody who called for invading mexico a few weeks ago because we have an

american in jail in tijuana. that's not the kind of judgment i want representing me in congress. instant reaction to the president's announcement i would have airstrikes was, let's send in more troops. he also said a couple years ago that when president announced that women should serve in combat roles in this country, he said that is nearly certain to cost lives. women serving in combat roles. that's not a judgment we need in congress. it's a good question, how much is this going to cost? it needs to be debated in congress and authorized. >> rebuttal to how do we pay for its? >> we paid for by having a strong economy. and 80 costs money. bridges, schools, infrastructure. it all cost money, paying for medicare, social security. we need a robust economy. and, john, i know you didn't

serve but tiramisu is a marine has been languishing in a prison in mexico for over six months. every man and woman, and i served both come and i've committed both come everybody who served in this country must be sure that america has their back. when america doesn't have the back like benghazi, like mexico, what happens is it sends a signal to every veteran fighting of you know what? america will not be there. i did not advocate invading mexico. i advocated the president doing his duty in doing like all available means to get the young marine back. >> and you can watch the entire debate as well as all of our campaign 2014 coverage online at c-span.org. >> tonight on the communicator can jeremy grant is agency promotes more internet security talks at ways to increase data protection with alternatives to

passwords and basic security. security. >> the government is not looking to endorse any particular solution but rather subscribe at a high level the attributes of what these solution should look like, they have to be secure, privacy enhancing, easy-to-use and they have to be interoperable, and but that can be a guide industry to start developing solutions around it. just looking at the pilot we have, we have some that are looking at smartphone-based apps which will basically be used in live of the password to log in at different sites. other testing different types of biometrics, fingerprint, face, voice recognition. not that everyone of these will be the solution or even a solution for everybody, but the kind of things we're testing. >> tonight at eight eastern on the communicate is on c-span2. >> live pictures from the wilson center this afternoon where we are awaiting remarks from former russian foreign minister igor

ivanov. should get underway in just a moment. this is live coverage on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] .. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> again, we're live at the

wilson center here in washington, awaiting remarks from former russian foreign minister igor ivanov on u.s./russia relations. should get under way in just a moment here. want to call to your attention some of our live campaign 2014 coverage taking place right now on c-span. former president bill clinton is at the university of central arkansas attending a campaign rally for senator mark pryor, running for re-election. the race listed as a toss-up by the cook political report. that rally is underway right now on our companion network, c-span. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> we are just moments away from hearing from former russian foreign minister igor ivanov on the state of u.s./russian relations. should get under way in just a moment here on c-span2. the associated press reporting the supreme court is being criticized by people on both sides to have gay marriage debate for turning away appeals from five states seeking to ban gay and lesbian unions. you can read more about that in today's politico. >> good afternoon. welcome to the wilson center. i'm jane harman, the president and ceo, and very proud of the programming we do here and extremely proud of this program. many of us came into this room from a lunch, some of the smartest people on u.s./russia issues are sitting in the front several rows, and they had a

smaller conversation with minister ivanov, and it was enormously interesting to be part of that conversation. i was thinking about just in my own life some of the things that are not available to today's children that were available to mine. my daughter was in high school when the cold war ended, and she went to sidwell, a private school in this town, and she was part of an early summer exchange program in moscow. and she was there for about six weeks, and she ate every day at mcdonald's. not my idea, her idea. [laughter] which, rumor has it, is very different from the mcdonald's here and is a five-star restaurant or was in moscow. so just thinking about some small things, my daughter hillary would -- right now -- not be able to go to moscow on an exchange program or eat at

mcdonald's which, so far as i know, is closed for health violations. at any rate, unique in washington, the wilson center is the living memorial to our 28th president. our only ph.d. president, and we think that matters because of his very deep scholarship on so many issues, certainly including the congress. we are chartered by congress and are, our intention is to frame issues, provide a trusted space for conversation about issues and to develop and promote actionable ideas not just for policymakers here, but for thinkers and policymakers around the world. we are very proud of the lead role that our kennon institute which is 40 years old now led by matt roginsky has taken in shaping the dialogue on the topic today, u.s./russia relations and the prospects for a better partnership. the kennon institute has more

than 500 expert alumni located throughout the region. they're working on the toughest issues, building personal relationships and contributing, we hope, to a stronger public discussion and understanding. today we are very fortunate to hear from one of russia's top foreign policy minds to get his perspective of on recent events in ukraine and to hear, i hope, a positive vision for how our two countries move forward. our guest today, igor ivanov, was russian foreign minister twice, first to president questionen and then to president putin from 2004 to 2007, he was secretary of the security council of the russian federation. he also served as ambassador for the ussr and the russian federation and currently heads the russian international affairs council, and he co-chaired the bosnia settlement talks in dayton, ohio, not an easy negotiation.

so his experience is vast, and we just discovered that he and i are the same age, and i'm not exactly sure what that leads to, except that -- [laughter] we're not the youngest people in the room. my good friend henry kissinger, a very good friend of many here, wrote the foreword to minister ivanov's 2002 book called "the new russian diplomacy." henry warned then that troubled times were on the horizon for u.s./rush shah relations -- russia relations. now the bipartisan, bilateral -- not bipartisan, the bilateral relationship is in, i think most of us would agree, worse shape, possibly the worst shape it's been since the end of the cold war. and many are asking if there's anything that the partnership between the u.s. and russia can still achieve or even attempt to achieve. but diplomacy is about maintaining working

relationships even and especially when states don't see eye to eye. so i look forward, and i think this audience looks forward, to hearing minister ivanov's talk on how we can confront shared challenges. our own rock star, resident rock star scholar, jill doherty, who is now a public policy scholar writing a book on vladimir putin, is here to ask the tough questions and get actionable answers. that's a good sound bite. [laughter] you probably know her best from her years at cnn. she is totally brilliant and, obviously, if we want to get the questions asked right, we have to put a woman in charge of this panel. please welcome jill doherty. [laughter] [applause] >> thank you, president harman. really, i am really very glad and grateful to jane harman for asking me to ask the questions of igor ivanov, as we call

him -- [speaking russian] very glad that he is the person in this trusted space that jane referred to who's going to be answering these questions, because i covered him, in fact, for your entire tenure as the secretary -- as the minister of foreign relations, foreign affairs in moscow. and i always felt, and this is really a very sincere comment, that you were very moderate, fair, a top diplomat who really understood the challenges of the relationship but always had an idea of how things practically, on a really practical basis, could be improved. and so i'm going to ask you some questions. maybe i'll do a tv-style question to begin which will be very simplistic, of course, but will start us off in the right vein. but i hope that really during the course of this time that we'll feature questions from the

audience as well. we can get to something that's useful and could maybe spark some improvement in the relationship which at this point doesn't seem very hope. but -- hopeful. but let's begin -- [speaking russian] at the wilson center -- >> thank you. >> and i want to ask you, here's the tv question: the, relationship, as we all know, is extremely bad right now. you would say it wasn't just ukraine that pushed it over the edge. you would say that it goes back further. but i'm going to ask you a question in russian, and i'll translate it very quickly which is -- [speaking russian] and as some of you who speak russian you know, who's at fault, who's guilty? let's start with that. who is -- [speaking russian] >> well, first of all, thank you very much for inviting me. as a professional soviet

diplomat, i prepared a long speech. [laughter] but i won't, i won't -- [laughter] i'm happy to read it and say good-bye, but since there's no speeches and only questions and answers. but i want to read only the first page, and after this i will try to -- >> that's fair. >> because you have to know what i wrote. >> absolutely. >> and what i wrote -- [laughter] i said let me start my briefing with introductory remarks paying tribute to president woodrow wilson's dream of integrating politics, scholars and policy for the common good. the wilson center serves as a spectacular manifestation of this dream coming true by providing a critical in between the world of ideas, the world of policy by doing research, study, discussion and collaboration among a full spectrum of

individual consent with policy and scholarship in world affairs. the model of the wilson center is a source of inspiration to all those who are trying not only to understand the complicated universe of international relations, but also to change it for the better. that's why i'm here, and once again thank you very much. i am now change my job from official position to nongovernmental organization, and i don't know if it's more difficult it was before or now, because i am also want to study, not to teach. that's why for me the experience of wilson center is very important. now about your question, who is guilty. this is historically everybody making this question.

i think that when i was minister and had problems not with united states, but in other international issues, all the time i was trying to start with myself. if i personally, if i needed a country, if we did everything well to avoid the problem, if we did everything well to resolve the situation, that's why when you ask me who is guilty, i think that all sides are guilty. i think that all sides because we, be you speak about ukraine -- if you speak about ukraine, we couldn't manage the problem of ukraine as it was necessary. instead of trying to help ukraine, we started to push ukraine to west or to east saying you are with us, or you will not stay.

if you don't stay with us, then you cannot be member of european union association, european -- [inaudible] and we're saying if you are not with us, you cannot be member of our integrating system, economic system or custom and union. it was, it was big mistake from both sides. that's why, and this is not the only example of ukraine. the same thing we have previously in many, in different occasions. that's why when i said during the hour previous discussion that ukraine was the last point demonstrating our mistakes. for me, it would be easier to say that mistakes were from the other side, and i can enumerate all the list of problems which

we never understood well or we thought that steps were made against the interests of russia. starting with the enlargement of nato and missile defense and so on and so forth. but i think that also american side or european or western side can -- [inaudible] to russia. and i understand that. and how to avoid this situation, only by dialogue, through dialogue with mechanisms of understanding between both sides because when you say you are unpredictable, if we don't speak, we don't understand well the reasons of the other side. we don't understand the

suspension. if you don't understand, then you may commit mistakes in your judgment or in your political, real political steps. that's why i think that in the situation of today which is, from my point of view, is one of worst in our bilateral history and not only after the cold war, but i speak in general about the history of our bilateral relation, i never -- i think that we never had the situation when we don't speak. we don't have real channels of dialogue. we don't have dialogue on political level, on the level of high level of different institutions, and without dialogue, how we think we can understand each other? and i think that today -- that's

why it's very important to be at the wilson center -- today on political level for different reasons it's not easy to restore quickly the dialogue, maybe nongovernmental organization or the civil society can play the role of restore the dialogue, of discuss all the issues. i think that there is no problem which we cannot discuss and try to find some kind of understanding. and to avoid the, this tendency with which, unfortunately, may create problems for everybody. >> minister ivanov, you know, you mentioned that everything has pretty much stalled, and every official that i speak with says basically nothing is happening in the relationship. the presidential commission has stalled, everything. you even mentioned ngos, you know, ngos, as we all know,

some of them are being shut down in russia, etc. so let's, let's look at the relationship. how -- can i guess the way i would put it is how far is russia willing to go to let that relationship deteriorate? in other words, does -- is russia prepared at this point to let the entire relationship blow up, or are there some crucial issues that are so existential to russia that russia simply will not let them be destroyed, and that could be the way of finding some type of common cause or interest with the united states. what is essential? >> sometimes you can read all this and that russia can live well without the united states, and in the united states saying that united states can exist without russia.

and it's true. we can live. but what does it mean, "we will"? we know that we have common problems, we can -- a lot of threats growing. after the cold war, all problems regional -- not only regional, they are growing without any solution. and it's clear that the international community needs cooperation and not to live in their own country. that's why i think that i totally, i cannot agree with such statements, we can live well without each other. we need each other. i published this article, that is why i'm not saying here, the u.s. and russia need each other now more than ever. because this is what i concede, and we want to -- and we

demonstrated many times when we are together, we're trying to work -- for example, after september 11th we participated together in creating antiterrorist coalition, and we worked very constructively together in afghanistan and in other places gaining information of terrorism. and i think that we gain together and not only our countries. many times after differences when we cooperated, and we lost when people, for example, here and in my country also criticizing the reset. i think the reset was good for both sides. it was good for both sides. unfortunately, we, there were no continuation for different reasons. but why we don't regain with reset. we have new s.t.a.r.t. agreement. is it good or bad? is good. we signed the different agreements in different, very

important areas. the united states helped, supported the integration of russia into wto. it's good. and i can only reiterate that's why reset was good. what was bad was there was no continuation of reset. and i think that is big mistake of politicians who think that we can live creating walls between our countries. you see that ukraine, you know, stupid politicians also saying that instead of war, we need to construct wall. this is not the 21st century style of life. we need to construct bridges and not walls. and what i want, i think, we have together instead of discussing around the ukraine, we have to work together to help

ukraine and to make ukraine bridge between us and not new berlin wall between europe -- between west and east. >> yes. but one of the problems in this town, as you know very, very well, is that there is a feeling, a theory, a belief that what russia is doing in ukraine is actually, you know, upending the international norms, the agreement between and russia after the cold war. i mean, do you see any merit to that argument? is. >> well, if you, if we speak about international norms and about international law, about international principles, after the cold war i don't know any principle created after the cold war. the it would take ten principles at helsinki in '75 written and

established before after the second world war. that's why this is -- i don't want to be, to start to change the answer from russia to other side and saying that it was not russia who started to undermine the international law and principles. but for me it's easy because as i told you, in my discussions, for example, during the balkans war what i was saying to my western partners, including americans, exactly what they are saying now to us about international law, about territorial integrity, about humanitarian intervention, about right the protect. all that principles including all ten principles of helsinki were related in several occasions. that's why this is not, this is

not that you may justify other relations because somebody related. this is the other story. but that's why that it means that you can say that this is -- you may do this, but the other side cannot do this. that's why what we mean when i started to say we need discussion about, open discussion about international community about what international principles we are speaking. and about what implementation of such principles. if we speak about rights of, over, inviolability over borders or -- >> sovereignty. >> -- sovereignty, we have to agree between us what mean. we cannot use these principles in one region or in one country and don't use in the other.

that's why all this exactly what we see that we need such a discussion, serious discussion on political level. i think that next year we have very important anniversaries; the anniversary of u.n., of united nations, 17 years, we have 40th anniversary of helsinki final act. it means this is when we -- i think this is an occasion to discuss -- [inaudible] what we need to do now in 21st century to bring forth the principles. >> uh-huh. well, let's take something specific dealing with speaking of principles. dealing with ukraine, one of the principles president putin talks about is, in a sense, his respondent to protect -- his responsibility to protect, his responsibility to protect russians, russian speakers in

other countries, mostly in the former soviet union. but i think the essential question, now, i don't know that anybody here knows the answer to it, and that is why there's so much concern which is, how far does that extend? i mean, does it extend to the baltics? does it extend to central asia? does it extend to brighton beach, new york? [laughter] >> i don't think that in brewington beach -- brighton beach there will be some people killing other people -- [laughter] >> you never know. >> innocent people bombing citizens. i don't think so. and you have quite strong authority in the united states and protective -- >> but help us to understand what is -- >> but coming back to responsibility to protect, this is very serious issue, and we

started to speak about the responsibility to protect during the balkans war. and after the balkans war with the, in africa, in many other places, and you know that in some countries the force was used. in mali, for example, one of the last examples. that's why if you see -- and this is not what i am saying, but observers, they are there in donesque, in lieu gansing, and they have clear evidence about disaster, what was happening there. that's why the responsibility to protect, i think that it's reasonable measure to protect the people. the other question is who has to take and how to use the responsibility? who is the -- it has to be one country